Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
This is the talk page for discussing Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() | NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment. |
![]() | Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page. |
![]() | Dispute Resolution (inactive) | |||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
URGENT: I have an issue starting with my RfC, and some errors too.
[edit]So i am trying to make an RfC about me wanting to add some additional sources + other questions and stuff. on one of my talk pages, but when I first published the RfC, the quote of my talk page isnt showing.
Location of my rfc: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All (specifically at the science, maths and technology section) My RfC is "Talk:Light skin", the quote of my talk page isnt showing, kindly help me with this. have a good day.
I am new to wikipedia (4 days old) so i am not familiar with codings
Kindly help me with this. thanks Rainbluetiful (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rainbluetiful, you have an WP:RFCBRIEF problem. The bot will not post a 1400+ word long "question". Look at the others in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology and see if you can add a similarly short "question" to the top of your RFC section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ohh i see, thanks for the tip. I'm new to these kinds of stuff. Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- And how many words can the bot accept in order for it to show? Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rainbluetiful: Please don't try to start another RfC. I have replied at Talk:Light skin#RfC about East Asians. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Req. inputs @ WT:BRD about Responding to RfC
[edit]Requesting inputs @ WT:BRD .. and/Vs #Responding to RfC. Thanks Bookku (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Pl. suggest format for RfC
[edit]I am in role of discussion facilitator at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC. The content dispute is about how much coverage is due.
After a long enough discussion among involved users Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. There are around 4 paragraph/ sentences due for RfC discussion. My perception is this RfC discussion would need more deliberation support in which and how much proposed content coverage would be appropriate. So looking for a suitable content deliberation friendly format, just beyond usual support/oppose format.
Please have a look at Primary preparation of RfC question and suggest which RfC format will be more suitable? Bookku (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon, Please refer to one of your Apr 2024 DRN close, where in you said ".. they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts. I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. ..".
- I helping as discussion facilitator in above case, but I have not set up RfC for Multiple paragraphs, so please see if you can help out in setting up the RfC. Bookku (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Bookku - I will look within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would wait and look forward to. Thanks Bookku (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Bookku - I will look within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- User talk:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024#Primary preparation of RfC question has multiple proposed additions. I think it would make more sense to have an RFC cover changes only to one section at a time. For example, the "Proposed additions of text 1" covers changes in the section ==Islam==, and the others are about other sections, so just do that one question by itself, and leave the others for another day.
- As for getting people to have a conversation, it often helps if they are directly told that the editors are looking for (non-voting) comments, suggestions about how to change the text, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon and @WhatamIdoing After above discussion and discussion with user initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1. Requesting you to have a look and do suggest formatting improvements, if any. Bookku (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Bookku - I will take a look. However, the better time to review the format of an RFC is before it is activated, because changes to the RFC while it is active complicate things both during discussion and for the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Yes you are right*. As such by Wikipedia editor interests standard, Talk:Jinn seems low attention topic, so, most probably, much discussion is unlikely to take place in couple of days, before you suggest changes, if any.
- For some or other reason the RfC got delayed since April, though RfC requesting user LPB has very appreciable patience, I had to give way to their request at some point. Bookku (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Yes you are right*. As such by Wikipedia editor interests standard, Talk:Jinn seems low attention topic, so, most probably, much discussion is unlikely to take place in couple of days, before you suggest changes, if any.
- User:Bookku - I will take a look. However, the better time to review the format of an RFC is before it is activated, because changes to the RFC while it is active complicate things both during discussion and for the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon and @WhatamIdoing After above discussion and discussion with user initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1. Requesting you to have a look and do suggest formatting improvements, if any. Bookku (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
arbitrary break for navigation
[edit]- User:Bookku - I have looked at the RFC twice. It confuses and puzzles me. I have a hard time understanding what it is trying to ask or say. I don't have much more to say about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing this. Though page views to Talk:Jinn increased after initiating RfC increased that did not translate into expected user participation in the discussion, that intrigues me too.
- Time constraints and restraints being DRN moderator and Admin on part of Robert McClenon are very much understandable to me, but for sake of improving participation shall need to understand from other uninvolved users What part of Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 confuses and puzzles users uninvolved so far? so we can improve possibly this RfC and next RfCs in this series.
- What is clear and what is confusing in of Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1? and how we can improve grammar, meaning, understanding of RfC intent?
- User:Bookku - I have looked at the RFC twice. It confuses and puzzles me. I have a hard time understanding what it is trying to ask or say. I don't have much more to say about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Which of following may have area of difficulty to understand?
|
---|
|
- Let me ping few users to uninvolved so far in present RfC to understand their inputs about above questions regarding area of improvement in on going RfC format.
- @Eucalyptusmint and Zero0000: @Toadspike and EEng: @TFD and Austronesier: @Maproom and Blueboar:
- Fyi:@Louis P. Boog:
Why set of above users pinged?
|
---|
- Bookku (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t really know why I was pinged… I know next to nothing about the subject (and don’t really have an interest in it). Is there a question about how to interpret or apply policy/guidelines that I could assist with? Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't intend to disrupt you. It's not what others are finding difficult but what an uninvolved user like might be finding difficult? Unless we survey we won't understand our area of improvement that's why request. Bookku (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is s question about how to ask a question about a topic I know nothing about. I'm out of here. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- No issues. just I had to seek inputs from those who came across only a little and how far they find understanding RfC and how rfC question can be improved. Sorry if I disrupted in good faith Bookku (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not a disruption… I took a quick look at the proposed RFC, and my initial reaction as an outsider was “Too long, didn’t read”. You are asking too many questions at one time.
- I was able to understand that the basic question being asked is: “should the article text include statements A, B, and C in sections X, Y and Z”. But about half way through I got lost in the wall of text, and stopped reading. I also quickly got confused by all the green drop down boxes.
- My advice is: keep it simple. File an RFC asking about one section, resolve that… then file a second RFC about the next section, etc.
- Finally, this is a somewhat niche topic area… I don’t expect you will get a lot of non-involved editors commenting. Ascertaining consensus will be difficult. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's what he did. The RFC asks only one short question ("In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?"). There's a whole lot of unnecessary small text instruction clutter that could be removed, and there was no need at all to add ===Survey===, ===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===, and ====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion==== sub-sections, but the question itself is quite short and simple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you and Blueboar have a point.
- Average per day page views in 2023 for Talk:Jinn were 5. After initiating RfC page views were 80, 60, 80 in three days. Idk what can be ideal participation ratio difference is considerable to ignore.
- @Louis P. Boog scheduled wiki break is coming let LPB restart the RfC afresh taking above points into account when they come back. Bookku (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- WAID: It was worse before this fix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- My good faith effort was to provide all relevant info at outset through collapse templates, easy navigation and presentation; with your valuable inputs I realize, that actually may have added into complexity. As per inputs henceforth I shall strive to keep it as much simpler.
- You would have noticed, I always seek community feed back, fully respect and strive to improve with collaborative support of all Wikipedians. Bookku (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreeing with the points that have been brought up by Blueboar and WhatamIdoing, there's a lot of info. It makes the whole thing hard to follow and takes away from question(s) you are seeking input on. Based on your list of questions above/feedback you're requesting, am providing some thoughts below on "text 1", hoping it can help some.
- 1) Heading of RfC: instead of saying "proposed additions of text 1", could say, "proposed additions to Islam section"
- 2) Question of Rfc: currently the proposed question is written as "Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?" Took a look at this section and it has 4 subsections, so it's unclear where this proposed text is meant to go.
- 3/4) unable to comment as am not familiar with this topic
- 5) Ref-List and author brief provided: providing reflist is helpful, the author brief isn't needed
- 6) Brief of general content disagreement: also don't think it needs to be included in the rfc itself, probably can be placed elsewhere
- - Eucalyptusmint (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Eucalyptusmint
- 2) Would it be okay to ask
- "Should the following sentence be added at the beginning of section "Islam" in the article?"
- Many thanks for valuable inputs. Fyi: @Louis P. Boog
- Bookku (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to help! and yep, I think that works. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest having no sub-sections and no instructions. Just ask the question, sign it, and stop. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Most popular if you need an example of what this looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to help! and yep, I think that works. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's what he did. The RFC asks only one short question ("In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?"). There's a whole lot of unnecessary small text instruction clutter that could be removed, and there was no need at all to add ===Survey===, ===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===, and ====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion==== sub-sections, but the question itself is quite short and simple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- No issues. just I had to seek inputs from those who came across only a little and how far they find understanding RfC and how rfC question can be improved. Sorry if I disrupted in good faith Bookku (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t really know why I was pinged… I know next to nothing about the subject (and don’t really have an interest in it). Is there a question about how to interpret or apply policy/guidelines that I could assist with? Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Bookku (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Louis P. Boog Users seem to be finding associating with RfC difficult for unexpressed reason. If there is not adequate participation at this point then, is there a point in continuing RfC at this point? would it be better to suspend the RfC for some weeks and restart when some uninvolved users could tell at least what they are finding difficult with RfC? Bookku (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- No objection. Perhaps I should have gotten involved more when the RfC first opened. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Anchors
[edit]When Legobot removes the RFC template, it also removes the anchor/id number used in various messages. I wonder whether we should expand the directions here with a note about optionally adding an {{anchor}} for the id number, so that inbound links will keep working?
On the one hand, I reluctant to have even longer instructions. On the other hand, avoiding broken links seems like a good idea in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- For now, it would need to be a manual action, as Legoktm is reluctant to amend Legobot (and wants to unload it to somebody else if a volunteer steps forward). But
{{rfc}}
tags may also be removed manually, not just by Legobot action - such as when WP:RFCEND or WP:RFCNOT apply. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)- I agree. We could, for example, change the wording from "To end an RfC manually, remove the
{{rfc}}
tag from the talk page" to say "To end an RfC manually, replace the{{rfc|id=123454678}}
tag on the talk page with{{anchor|12345678}}
, where the number is the id number automatically assigned by the bot to the RFC. The other parameters should be removed." - BTW, do you know enough Lua to give us an
|id=
parameter/alias in Module:Anchor? It might be easier to tell people to keep the|id=
parameter intact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)- I know no Lua. This is why I get so upset that templates that I've been happily maintaining for 10+ years get converted to Lua. Anyway, if the ongoing RfC has e.g.
{{rfc|bio|rfcid=1234567}}
the corresponding anchor would be{{anchor|rfc_1234567}}
- you need to add in therfc_
part. The|rfcid=
is a hexadecimal number and always has seven characters, I don't know why it's not six or eight. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)- Perhaps someone thought we'd never need more than 10 million. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seven hex digits allows for (16^7)=268,435,456 values which, if we assume ten new RfCs each day, would last us for 73,493 years. Six would be 16,777,216 (4593 years) and four would be 65,536 which allows for ten new RfCs per day for 18 years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- "However much you think you'll need, add three zeroes"? 73 years would have been overkill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seven hex digits allows for (16^7)=268,435,456 values which, if we assume ten new RfCs each day, would last us for 73,493 years. Six would be 16,777,216 (4593 years) and four would be 65,536 which allows for ten new RfCs per day for 18 years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone thought we'd never need more than 10 million. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I know no Lua. This is why I get so upset that templates that I've been happily maintaining for 10+ years get converted to Lua. Anyway, if the ongoing RfC has e.g.
- I agree. We could, for example, change the wording from "To end an RfC manually, remove the
RFCNEUTRAL question
[edit]Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#c-BilledMammal-20240730013200-WhatamIdoing-20240730012800. A concern has been raised about a suggested RFC question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Wikipedia:Requests for comment" page.